Originally Posted by heliodorus04
Wow, Marko, I'm actually saddened that you would circumscribe Sullivan into Chomsky's template so reflexively. If you can't recognize his wide-ranging honesty matched with truly reasoned curiosity (including about his own religion, which is very revealing of honesty) then I have to presume that either a) you don't read him at all regularly (which is what I'm hoping is the case), or b) you've actually bought into the Chomsky nihilist cult so utterly that I won't even use a comparative metaphor, because if that's the case, I'm gonna need a crane to pull my jaw off the floor (shit, there's a metaphor, sorry).
I mean, maybe you're impatient tonight or something, but taxes and spending cuts were merely examples. He's calling journalists to task.
Sometimes I think you're chicken little.
Good God, Helio! First, observe that I critiqued Sullivan’s article
and the premises within it, and did NOT
critique his personal character or add personal judgments. And then I put "Chomsky's framework" onto Sullivan's article - which was a deliberate choice and NOT a reflexive one.
I will reiterate why I think the premise of Sullivan’s article is narrow.
First, I agree partially with Sullivan's main premise that "journalists are not doing their job", and that it is okay - rather it is expected - that they may look like an asshole in order to "expose the truth."
I simply think his secondary premise of what questions to ask -- "Specifically
. Every single time" -- are narrow. Now, maybe Sullivan goes deeper into this problem of calling journalists to task and suggests more questions that they should ask in other writings, but he doesn't in this particular article, and that is why I felt this secondary premise is narrow. I also think that the media problems go much deeper than just the journalists, and placing the focus on the systematic problems are much more important. And considering that this media problem is such a MASSIVE part of the destruction of our democracy, just fluffing over it with a narrow type of article, like Sullivan's, and placing the blame on the individual journalists instead of focusing on the systematic problems is disingenuous.
See yesterday's Democracy Now discussion
with Robert McChesney and John Nichols to get an idea of the seriousness of the systematic problems of the media and journalism.
I do not like reading Sullivan for various reasons. It also took me awhile to remember why I had a bad taste in my mouth in regards to Sullivan. But then I remembered! I lost complete respect for this man when he blatantly slandered Chomsky – with NO evidence to support his claims - on the Bill Maher show. He was called out to prove his claims after the fact, but chose to continue slandering instead of proving his claims. It’s not very honest in my opinion and reveals a bit about his character. I decided to go back and refresh my memory by watching some clips of it and then I re-read this article: Sullivan Slanders and Slinks Away, by Michael Leon
Here is an email response from Chomsky as well:
“I don’t know if you are aware of how funny the line about my supporting Russia is. Two minutes research would have shown him that I've been strongly anti-Leninist throughout my life, in fact from childhood. He may not know it, but the Kremlin surely did. I was utter anathema there, so much so that my entire professional field [linguistics] was banned. I couldn’t even send technical papers to colleagues and friends in Eastern Europe because it would get them into trouble. It wasn’t until the mid-80s that there were any openings. One of the favorite weeks of my life was in about 1980, when I received two dailies denouncing me furiously for my work on transformational grammar: One was Izvestia, denouncing it as counterrevolutionary, and the other was Argentina’s La Prensa (at the peak of the neo-Nazi military dictatorship), denouncing it as dangerously revolutionary. They’re all basically alike, and Sullivan fits in probably better than he knows.”
As for me putting “Chomsky’s template” onto Sullivan’s work:
Getting into a tit for tat about Chomsky’s work with you is a waste of my time. It reminds me of the old saying: “Why teach a pig how to sing. In the end it will be a waste your time and you will simply just annoy the pig.” And just to make sure that there is no misinterpretation... this saying does not mean to suggest that you are a pig.
Chomsky and Herman’s Propaganda Model can defend itself, and has been for 22 years!! Why you seem to think Sullivan (a media pundit) is exempt from their model shows me that you have not read Manufacturing Consent, and/or have probably misinterpreted Chomsky’s work because of a difference in ideological perspective. Chomsky critiques “power in Western society and the way in which key institutions, such as the media, reinforce elite interests in society.”
I think it is sad that you follow Sullivan’s lead in using vitriolic comments when speaking about Chomsky's actual or alleged views. Chomsky's work is easily accessible in the public for anybody to read. His thesis' can defend itself and can also be proven wrong for those who want to take that on. Why people instead choose to take the path of attacking his personal character, instead of focusing on proving his thesis' wrong, only reveals their own shortcomings.
And with that Helio, and all of you eddy readers... I'm out! Time and time again I continue to get sucked back into The eddy, and it just doesn't serve my time well anymore. I am also so tired of the personal attacks that take place in here (of which I have done in the past too...sorry), instead of what should be taking place... discussing and debating IDEAS. I think there are so many AWESOME people in the mountainbuzz and paddling community and I will continue to share my love of paddling with them on the boaters forum and on the river. But I will no longer share my socio/economic/political views in this public forum.